Final answer:
If new evidence contradicted the theory of plate tectonics, it would likely lead to a revision or modification of the theory. Scientific theories are not immutable; they are constantly tested and updated based on new data. When contradictory observations are found, theories may need to be revised or even discarded to better match the evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
If new evidence were found that did not match our current understanding of plate tectonics, the most likely response from the scientific community would be to revise or modify the existing theory to incorporate this new evidence. This process is a fundamental principle in science, where theories are continuously tested and updated based on new data and observations. The option that best describes what would happen is (a) The theory would be revised or modified to incorporate the new evidence.
The history of science shows numerous instances where theories have faced skepticism and controversy before being accepted. For example, Alfred Wegener's idea of continental drift was initially rejected by many scientists due to a lack of supporting evidence and an adequate mechanism to explain the movement of continents. Over time, as more evidence accumulated, especially from studying the ocean floors and observing magnetic striping and seafloor spreading, the scientific community eventually embraced the concept which became integrated into the broader theory of plate tectonics.
Scientific theories may still face controversy. For instance, the theory of climate change, despite overwhelming consensus, continues to be debated in some circles. When controversies arise, scientists employ the scientific method to test theories rigorously—through experimentation, observation, and peer review—to determine their validity. As our technological abilities grow, so does our potential to make discoveries that can challenge or affirm existing theories.
It's important to note that scientific laws and theories are not the same. A law describes what happens under certain conditions but does not explain why. Both laws and theories can be refined or overturned if new, contradictory evidence is presented. Therefore, the corrected statement about scientific laws is that they can be changed if new evidence contradicts them.
Reflecting on why scientists sometimes discard theories, the correct reason would be (d) contradictory observations are found. Theories are based on evidence, and when the evidence no longer supports the theory, it must be re-evaluated and potentially revised or discarded.